[PATCH v8 02/19] arm64: Allow mismatched 32-bit EL0 support
Mark Rutland
mark.rutland at arm.com
Thu Jun 3 05:37:15 PDT 2021
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 05:47:02PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> When confronted with a mixture of CPUs, some of which support 32-bit
> applications and others which don't, we quite sensibly treat the system
> as 64-bit only for userspace and prevent execve() of 32-bit binaries.
>
> Unfortunately, some crazy folks have decided to build systems like this
> with the intention of running 32-bit applications, so relax our
> sanitisation logic to continue to advertise 32-bit support to userspace
> on these systems and track the real 32-bit capable cores in a cpumask
> instead. For now, the default behaviour remains but will be tied to
> a command-line option in a later patch.
>
> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will at kernel.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 8 +-
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> arch/arm64/tools/cpucaps | 3 +-
> 3 files changed, 110 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index 338840c00e8e..603bf4160cd6 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -630,9 +630,15 @@ static inline bool cpu_supports_mixed_endian_el0(void)
> return id_aa64mmfr0_mixed_endian_el0(read_cpuid(ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1));
> }
>
> +const struct cpumask *system_32bit_el0_cpumask(void);
> +DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(arm64_mismatched_32bit_el0);
> +
> static inline bool system_supports_32bit_el0(void)
> {
> - return cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL0);
> + u64 pfr0 = read_sanitised_ftr_reg(SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1);
> +
> + return static_branch_unlikely(&arm64_mismatched_32bit_el0) ||
> + id_aa64pfr0_32bit_el0(pfr0);
> }
Note that read_sanitised_ftr_reg() has to do a bsearch() to find the
arm64_ftr_reg, so this will make system_32bit_el0_cpumask() a fair
amount more expensive than it needs to be.
Can we follow the pattern we have for arm64_ftr_reg_ctrel0, and have a
arm64_ftr_reg_id_aa64pfr0_el1 that we can address directly here?
That said. I reckon this could be much cleaner if we maintained separate
caps:
ARM64_ALL_CPUS_HAVE_32BIT_EL0
ARM64_SOME_CPUS_HAVE_32BIT_EL0
... and allow arm64_mismatched_32bit_el0 to be set dependent on
ARM64_SOME_CPUS_HAVE_32BIT_EL0. With that, this can be simplified to:
static inline bool system_supports_32bit_el0(void)
{
return (cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_ALL_CPUS_HAVE_32BIT_EL0)) ||
static_branch_unlikely(&arm64_mismatched_32bit_el0))
}
> static inline bool system_supports_4kb_granule(void)
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index a4db25cd7122..4194a47de62d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -107,6 +107,24 @@ DECLARE_BITMAP(boot_capabilities, ARM64_NPATCHABLE);
> bool arm64_use_ng_mappings = false;
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(arm64_use_ng_mappings);
>
> +/*
> + * Permit PER_LINUX32 and execve() of 32-bit binaries even if not all CPUs
> + * support it?
> + */
> +static bool __read_mostly allow_mismatched_32bit_el0;
> +
> +/*
> + * Static branch enabled only if allow_mismatched_32bit_el0 is set and we have
> + * seen at least one CPU capable of 32-bit EL0.
> + */
> +DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(arm64_mismatched_32bit_el0);
> +
> +/*
> + * Mask of CPUs supporting 32-bit EL0.
> + * Only valid if arm64_mismatched_32bit_el0 is enabled.
> + */
> +static cpumask_var_t cpu_32bit_el0_mask __cpumask_var_read_mostly;
> +
> /*
> * Flag to indicate if we have computed the system wide
> * capabilities based on the boot time active CPUs. This
> @@ -767,7 +785,7 @@ static void __init sort_ftr_regs(void)
> * Any bits that are not covered by an arm64_ftr_bits entry are considered
> * RES0 for the system-wide value, and must strictly match.
> */
> -static void __init init_cpu_ftr_reg(u32 sys_reg, u64 new)
> +static void init_cpu_ftr_reg(u32 sys_reg, u64 new)
> {
> u64 val = 0;
> u64 strict_mask = ~0x0ULL;
> @@ -863,7 +881,7 @@ static void __init init_cpu_hwcaps_indirect_list(void)
>
> static void __init setup_boot_cpu_capabilities(void);
>
> -static void __init init_32bit_cpu_features(struct cpuinfo_32bit *info)
> +static void init_32bit_cpu_features(struct cpuinfo_32bit *info)
> {
> init_cpu_ftr_reg(SYS_ID_DFR0_EL1, info->reg_id_dfr0);
> init_cpu_ftr_reg(SYS_ID_DFR1_EL1, info->reg_id_dfr1);
> @@ -979,6 +997,22 @@ static void relax_cpu_ftr_reg(u32 sys_id, int field)
> WARN_ON(!ftrp->width);
> }
>
> +static void update_mismatched_32bit_el0_cpu_features(struct cpuinfo_arm64 *info,
> + struct cpuinfo_arm64 *boot)
Could we s/update/lazy_init/ here?
IIUC this caters for the case where CPU0 doesn't have AArch32 but a
secondary does. That, and the naming looks odd in update_cpu_features()
when we have:
update_mismatched_32bit_el0_cpu_features(...)
update_32bit_cpu_features(...);
> +{
> + static bool boot_cpu_32bit_regs_overridden = false;
> +
> + if (!allow_mismatched_32bit_el0 || boot_cpu_32bit_regs_overridden)
> + return;
> +
> + if (id_aa64pfr0_32bit_el0(boot->reg_id_aa64pfr0))
> + return;
> +
> + boot->aarch32 = info->aarch32;
> + init_32bit_cpu_features(&boot->aarch32);
> + boot_cpu_32bit_regs_overridden = true;
> +}
Can't we share this with the boot CPU path if we do:
/*
* Initialize the common AArch32 features on the first CPU with AArch32.
*/
static void lazy_init_32bit_el0_cpu_features(struct cpuinfo_arm64 *info,
struct cpuinfo_arm64 *boot)
{
static bool initialised = false;
if (initialised || !id_aa64pfr0_32bit_el0(info->reg_id_aa64pfr0))
return;
boot->aarch32 = info->aarch32;
init_32bit_cpu_features(&boot->aarch32);
initiaised = true;
}
... or is the allow_mismatched_32bit_el0 check necessary for late
hotplug?
> +
> static int update_32bit_cpu_features(int cpu, struct cpuinfo_32bit *info,
> struct cpuinfo_32bit *boot)
> {
> @@ -1139,6 +1173,7 @@ void update_cpu_features(int cpu,
> * (e.g. SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1), so we call it last.
> */
> if (id_aa64pfr0_32bit_el0(info->reg_id_aa64pfr0)) {
> + update_mismatched_32bit_el0_cpu_features(info, boot);
> taint |= update_32bit_cpu_features(cpu, &info->aarch32,
> &boot->aarch32);
> }
> @@ -1251,6 +1286,28 @@ has_cpuid_feature(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int scope)
> return feature_matches(val, entry);
> }
>
> +const struct cpumask *system_32bit_el0_cpumask(void)
> +{
> + if (!system_supports_32bit_el0())
> + return cpu_none_mask;
> +
> + if (static_branch_unlikely(&arm64_mismatched_32bit_el0))
> + return cpu_32bit_el0_mask;
> +
> + return cpu_possible_mask;
> +}
> +
> +static bool has_32bit_el0(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int scope)
> +{
> + if (!has_cpuid_feature(entry, scope))
> + return allow_mismatched_32bit_el0;
> +
> + if (scope == SCOPE_SYSTEM)
> + pr_info("detected: 32-bit EL0 Support\n");
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> static bool has_useable_gicv3_cpuif(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int scope)
> {
> bool has_sre;
> @@ -1869,10 +1926,9 @@ static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_features[] = {
> .cpu_enable = cpu_copy_el2regs,
> },
> {
> - .desc = "32-bit EL0 Support",
> - .capability = ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL0,
> + .capability = ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL0_DO_NOT_USE,
> .type = ARM64_CPUCAP_SYSTEM_FEATURE,
> - .matches = has_cpuid_feature,
> + .matches = has_32bit_el0,
> .sys_reg = SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1,
> .sign = FTR_UNSIGNED,
> .field_pos = ID_AA64PFR0_EL0_SHIFT,
> @@ -2381,7 +2437,7 @@ static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities compat_elf_hwcaps[] = {
> {},
> };
>
> -static void __init cap_set_elf_hwcap(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *cap)
> +static void cap_set_elf_hwcap(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *cap)
> {
> switch (cap->hwcap_type) {
> case CAP_HWCAP:
> @@ -2426,7 +2482,7 @@ static bool cpus_have_elf_hwcap(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *cap)
> return rc;
> }
>
> -static void __init setup_elf_hwcaps(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *hwcaps)
> +static void setup_elf_hwcaps(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *hwcaps)
> {
> /* We support emulation of accesses to CPU ID feature registers */
> cpu_set_named_feature(CPUID);
> @@ -2601,7 +2657,7 @@ static void check_early_cpu_features(void)
> }
>
> static void
> -verify_local_elf_hwcaps(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps)
> +__verify_local_elf_hwcaps(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps)
> {
>
> for (; caps->matches; caps++)
> @@ -2612,6 +2668,14 @@ verify_local_elf_hwcaps(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps)
> }
> }
>
> +static void verify_local_elf_hwcaps(void)
> +{
> + __verify_local_elf_hwcaps(arm64_elf_hwcaps);
> +
> + if (id_aa64pfr0_32bit_el0(read_cpuid(ID_AA64PFR0_EL1)))
> + __verify_local_elf_hwcaps(compat_elf_hwcaps);
> +}
> +
> static void verify_sve_features(void)
> {
> u64 safe_zcr = read_sanitised_ftr_reg(SYS_ZCR_EL1);
> @@ -2676,11 +2740,7 @@ static void verify_local_cpu_capabilities(void)
> * on all secondary CPUs.
> */
> verify_local_cpu_caps(SCOPE_ALL & ~SCOPE_BOOT_CPU);
> -
> - verify_local_elf_hwcaps(arm64_elf_hwcaps);
> -
> - if (system_supports_32bit_el0())
> - verify_local_elf_hwcaps(compat_elf_hwcaps);
> + verify_local_elf_hwcaps();
>
> if (system_supports_sve())
> verify_sve_features();
> @@ -2815,6 +2875,34 @@ void __init setup_cpu_features(void)
> ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN);
> }
>
> +static int enable_mismatched_32bit_el0(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> + struct cpuinfo_arm64 *info = &per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu);
> + bool cpu_32bit = id_aa64pfr0_32bit_el0(info->reg_id_aa64pfr0);
> +
> + if (cpu_32bit) {
> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_32bit_el0_mask);
> + static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(&arm64_mismatched_32bit_el0);
> + setup_elf_hwcaps(compat_elf_hwcaps);
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int __init init_32bit_el0_mask(void)
> +{
> + if (!allow_mismatched_32bit_el0)
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (!zalloc_cpumask_var(&cpu_32bit_el0_mask, GFP_KERNEL))
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + return cpuhp_setup_state(CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN,
> + "arm64/mismatched_32bit_el0:online",
> + enable_mismatched_32bit_el0, NULL);
> +}
Shouldn't we clear this on a hot-unplug?
Thanks,
Mark.
> +subsys_initcall_sync(init_32bit_el0_mask);
> +
> static void __maybe_unused cpu_enable_cnp(struct arm64_cpu_capabilities const *cap)
> {
> cpu_replace_ttbr1(lm_alias(swapper_pg_dir));
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/tools/cpucaps b/arch/arm64/tools/cpucaps
> index 21fbdda7086e..49305c2e6dfd 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/tools/cpucaps
> +++ b/arch/arm64/tools/cpucaps
> @@ -3,7 +3,8 @@
> # Internal CPU capabilities constants, keep this list sorted
>
> BTI
> -HAS_32BIT_EL0
> +# Unreliable: use system_supports_32bit_el0() instead.
> +HAS_32BIT_EL0_DO_NOT_USE
> HAS_32BIT_EL1
> HAS_ADDRESS_AUTH
> HAS_ADDRESS_AUTH_ARCH
> --
> 2.32.0.rc0.204.g9fa02ecfa5-goog
>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list